1887
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2214-9953
  • E-ISSN: 2214-9961
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper considers the interplay of physical and digital landscaping in the Mission District (‘the Mission’), a gentrified neighborhood in San Francisco, California. Aligned with recent work on affect and people’s mediations of the linguistic landscape (Wee, 2016Banda & Jimaima, 2015), I examine how the Mission is  – literally and figuratively – in a corpus of 16,756 Instagram posts. Comparing these digital remediated productions of place to the physical landscape, I demonstrate how both are structured semiotically along exclusionary lines. Contrary to the democratic and inclusive mythology of digital / social media, I show how users’ self-positionings and elitist stancetaking (Jaworski & Thurlow, 2009Mapes, forthcoming) effectively reinscribe privilege and reiterate gentrification of the Mission. As mining of ‘big data’ becomes increasingly valued as empirically ‘objective’ information, my analysis demonstrates geotagged content should not be viewed as a static indicator, but as a subjective, dynamic and – at times – problematic process.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ll.18025.lyo
2019-07-22
2019-09-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agha, A.
    (2007) Language and social relations. Number 24. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Banda, F. and Jimaima, H.
    (2015) The semiotic ecology of linguistic landscapes in rural Zambia. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 19(5): 643–670. 10.1111/josl.12157
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12157 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bauman, R. and Briggs, C. L.
    (1990) Poetics and performances as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual review of Anthropology, 19(1): 59–88. 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.000423
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.000423 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolter, J. D. & Grusin, R.
    (1999) Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bonilla-Silva, E.
    (2012) The invisible weight of whiteness: the racial grammar of everyday life in contemporary america. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(2): 173–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Burgess, J.
    (2010) Remediating vernacular creativity: Photography and cultural citizenship in the Flickr photo-sharing network. InT. Edensor, D. Leslie, S. Millington & N. Rantisi (Eds.), Spaces of Vernacular Creativity: Rethinking the Cultural Economy (pp.116–125). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cobley, P. & Haeffner, N.
    (2009) Digital cameras and domestic photography: Communication, agency and structure. Visual Communication, 8: 123–146. 10.1177/1470357209102110
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357209102110 [Google Scholar]
  8. Glass, R.
    (1964) Aspects of change. InBrown-Saracino, J. (Ed.), The Gentrification Debates: A Reader. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gonçalves, K.
    (2019) The semiotic paradox of street art: Gentrification and the commodification of Bushwick, Brooklyn. InA. Peck, C. Stroud & Q. Williams (Eds), Making Sense of People and Place in Linguistic Landscape (pp.141–158). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hill, J.
    (1998) Language, race and the White public space. American Anthropologist, 100(3): 680–689. 10.1525/aa.1998.100.3.680
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1998.100.3.680 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hooks, B.
    (1992) Black looks: race and representation. Boston: South End Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Howell, O.
    (2015) Making the mission: planning and ethnicity in San Francisco. University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226290287.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226290287.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ivkovic, D. & Lotherington, H.
    (2009) Multilingualism in cyberspace: conceptualising the virtual linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(1): 17–36. 10.1080/14790710802582436
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710802582436 [Google Scholar]
  14. Jaworski, A.
    (1993) The power of silence: Social and pragmatic perspectives, volume 1 of Language and Language Behaviors. Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781483325460
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325460 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2015) Globalese: a new visual-linguistic register. Social Semiotics, 25(2): 217–235. 10.1080/10350330.2015.1010317
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2015.1010317 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jaworski, A. & Thurlow, C.
    (2009) Taking an elitist stance: Ideology and the discursive production of social distinction. InA. Jaffee (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives (pp.195–226). New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.003.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jones, R. H.
    (2010) Cyberspace and physical space: Attention structures in computer mediated communication. InJaworski, A. & Thurlow, C. (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space, 151–167. Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kiesling, S.
    (2001) Stances of whiteness and hegemony in fraternity men’s discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11(1):101–115. 10.1525/jlin.2001.11.1.101
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2001.11.1.101 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kockelman, P.
    (2013) The anthropology of an equation. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 3(3): 33–61. 10.14318/hau3.3.003
    https://doi.org/10.14318/hau3.3.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lefebvre, H.
    (1991 [1974]) The Production of Space [trans.D. Nicholson-Smith). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lou, J. J.
    (2016) The Linguistic Landscape of Chinatown: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783095636
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095636 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lyons, K.
    (2017) From Street to Screen: Linguistic Productions of Place in San Francisco’s Mission District. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. RetrievedMarch 15, 2019hdl.handle.net/2142/100965/
  23. Malinowski, D.
    (2010) Showing seeing in the Korean linguistic cityscape. InE. Shohamy, & Barni, M. (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape in the City, 199–218. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847692993‑013
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692993-013 [Google Scholar]
  24. Mapes, G.
    (forth.). Mediatizing the fashionable eater: Orders of elitist stancetaking in “throwback Thursday” Instagram posts. InCynthia Gordon & Alla Tovares Eds. Identity and Ideology in Digital Food Discourse: Social Media Interactions Across Cultural Context. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Marwick, A.
    (2013) Status update: Celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ní Dhonnacha, E., Wade, K. & Kallen, J.
    (2015) Online linguistic landscapes: Discourse, globalisation, and enregisterment. Linguistic Landscapes International Workshop 7.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Office of Historic Preservation
    Office of Historic Preservation (2007) City Within a City: Historic Context Statement for San Francisco’s Mission District. Report prepared by City and County of San Francisco Planning Department; RetrievedMarch 17, 2019. ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/mission%20district%20nov07.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Papen, U.
    (2012) Commercial discourses, gentrification and citizens’ protest: The linguistic landscape of Prenzlauer Berg, Berlin. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(1): 56–80. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2011.00518.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00518.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Sheller, M. & Urry, J.
    (2006) The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38: 207–226. 10.1068/a37268
    https://doi.org/10.1068/a37268 [Google Scholar]
  30. Silverstein, M.
    (2003) Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication, 23(3–4): 193–229. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(03)00013‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Thurlow, C. & Jaworski, A.
    (2010) Silence is golden: Linguascaping, anti-communication and social exclusion in luxury tourism representations. InA. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic Landscapes: Image, Text, Space (pp.187–218). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2014) ‘Two hundred ninety-four’: Remediation and multimodal performance in tourist placemaking. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(4): 459–494. 10.1111/josl.12090
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12090 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2011) Banal globalization? embodied actions and mediated practices in tourists’ online photo-sharing. InThurlow, C. & Mroczek, K. (Eds.), Digital discourse: Language in the new media, 220–250. Oxford. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199795437.003.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199795437.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  34. Trinch, S. & Snajdr, E.
    (2017) What the signs say: Gentrification and the disappearance of capitalism without distinction in Brooklyn. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(1): 64–89. 10.1111/josl.12212
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12212 [Google Scholar]
  35. Wee, L.
    (2016) Situating affect in linguistic landscapes. Linguistic Landscape, 2(2): 105–126. 10.1075/ll.2.2.01wee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.2.2.01wee [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ll.18025.lyo
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ll.18025.lyo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error